Getting a human somewhere and back is not really an optimal solution. Robotic exploration and surveying is far more practical and efficient. We could even use our robotic servants to prepare our habitats long before any people set off. In this way, we would always be arriving at a known quantity, thus reducing the risks and aiding colonisation. Perhaps Von Neumann machines could be mining and producing any needed fuels and resources decades before any planned human exploration, meaning we would not need to carry half of the mass. ESA will build a manned space vehicle when they are good and ready.

i agree will should send a hell of a lot of what we need before we get there, all well and good saying lets live off the land but how about first we send the tools to do this.

Robots turning on us, yeah ok then! hmm.
They will only do what they are programmed to do, unles they are told to learn and therefore will make mistakes. A computer doesnt just load explorer when it feels like it as a comp game doesnt change midway without the relative programming. Although beleive me i have learned that programmes are very unpredictable i dont forsee that they will do anything other than what they are programmed as they will not know of doing anything different.

Quite ausing the way knowone even thinks about esa for the moon. They get no mention on these topics. They already have Smart-1 in orbit now to do lunar science and gather more info, what's the chance they could send some robots there for sample returns? Guess they fall down on the getting there because they have no manned vehicles

I didn't think that the ESA has made any statement that they intend to go to the moon. While China, the US and Armadillo have all said that going to the moon is one of their goals. If the ESA goes I'm all for it, the more the merrier and the greater my ridiculously slim to non-existent chances of going someday become.

There are several possible fission based rocket systems that could be built today. From the NERVA, ol' Orion and something called a 'Gas Core Nuclear Reactor'. From what I've read the gas core seemed the most promising. Nuclearspace.com had a very interesting article about liberty ship style rockets using one. Although things seem to slowy be shifting politically, where nuclear rockets may be possible I don't think they're going to happen anytime soon.

Nuclear space also did a write up about a modern version of the Orion that actually sounded plausible. Unfortunately many of the articles on nuclear space are not currently available.

NERVA and the GCNR both super heat hydrogen. Actually I bet they could super heat pretty much anything.

Most of the Orion designs I've seen used a two stage shock absorber system to smooth out the pounding. Still those designs were also talking about detonating about 800 or so nukes in the atmosphere. Probably not as dangerous as the rabid anti-nuke people would scream about using advanced nukes but thats still quite a lot. Although if I were a billionaire I'd be building one somewhere in the South Pacific Just in case it was neeeded, you never know hahaha.

The exhaust from a GCNR didn't seem to be a problem in the writeup I read on it. Unfortunately that's no longer available and the site is very pro-nuclear. Another article on the site basically said that an Orion could be launched with little harm, at least compared to something like living near a coal fired power plant, if I'm remembering correctly.